• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

The saudi's are using an enemy to attack an enemy. This is great news for these guys.

I think an attack on Iran would be a fundamental mistake and its no surprise the Saudi's are egging it on. The West is using nothing but Irans erratic behaviour and secretive ways to convince themselves Iran has a nuclear bomb - and they probably do. But i want to see solid proof, solid intel, and pictures. Without it, attacking Iran remains out of the question. Anything else would be the Saddam regime all over again.
 
Last edited:
I agree EW is not a fantastic cloaking device that would make such a mission a breeze, but the Syrian's have already proven incapable of detecting Israel aircraft using such techniques, as with the 2007 Israeli raid into Syria.
Click to expand...

1) Syria has upgraded its air defense systems since then. 2) Flying at cruising altitude is a completely different mission than flying a low level penetration strike.

Not to say this would not be more involved, as it obviously would be, but it is doable against a very limited Syrian defense threat.
Click to expand...

Either the Israeli's fly at cruising altitude and they get spotted, or they fly a low level and don't have the range to make to Iran and back.

They might get hit on the way back, but they might not. Syria would still have to scramble fighters from bases that are not really along the Northern route to intercept. Maybe they would maybe they wouldn't, if I was an Israeli policy maker seriously considering the airstrike option, it is a risk I would take.
Click to expand...

The F-15's can't fly faster than cruising speed the whole way, while the Syrians can fly as fast as they like, making interception a very likely situation.

True, but with such a site even an airstrike would not be all that effective either.
Click to expand...

There are specialized air-carried munitions starting from ww2 to the present that are capable of destroying such hardened targets. They are extremely heavy though, making the range issue worse.

1) An in flight refueling (IFR) probe could be incorporated into the F-15E to give the aircraft the capability to refuel from drogue configured tankers.
2) Buddy Refueling between F-15Es that can be packaged in an external tank or CFT. This would be useful in an emergency situation when Strike Missions are in Egress from the target area.
3) Larger External Tanks (Dropped Tanks). These tanks would have a fuel capacity of 800 gallons compared to the standard 610 gallons. The F-15E‘s mission radius would then be increased by about 10%.
4) Additional Internal Fuel added to the outer wing of the F-15E. This would increase the mission radius by 2%
5) Larger Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs). The F-15E could still carry the air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons and external pods as well as the fuel tanks. This would increase the mission radius by 5%.
Click to expand...

That simply isn't enough to make the distance. Its a 2000 mile round trip as the crow flies, and considerably more than that detouring through Syria.

Any other route poses to large of a political risk in my opinion. I could be wrong on that, but that is what I think.
Click to expand...

I agree the political risk is large but its minimal to risk of failing in the mission or loosing half your air force in the process.
 
By the way, I've just recalled that the plane that took down the arms-smuggling convoy in Sudan during the 2008-2009 Gaza War was actually Israel's best UAV, the Eitan. (An improved Heron UAV)

Its range is 4603+ miles, according to Wikipedia.
Meaning it could easily reach Iran.
Click to expand...

It might reach Iran even with a 5000 lb payload , but it wouldn't have a prayer of surviving. Its a giant slow sitting duck.
 
If the news is accurate, this decision is not too surprising. Saudi Arabia is far more concerned with the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran poses to its interests, including its capability to dramatically tilt the Sunni-Shia relationship in favor of the Shia.
 
donsutherland1 said:
If the news is accurate, this decision is not too surprising. Saudi Arabia is far more concerned with the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran poses to its interests, including its capability to dramatically tilt the Sunni-Shia relationship in favor of the Shia.
Click to expand...

It's not accurate.
 
The nothern route is closed pretty much, Turkey as I understand things have moved some air defenses towards its south east boarder, so while Syria might not detect Israeli war planes Turkey certainly could, and while its planes are not up to the level of Israeli ones they are not that far behind, they do have some of the most up to date F 16 export models, and could scramble them to intercept returning Israeli planes or those loitering in Syrian or Iraqi space.

Besides which most estimates I have seen state that Israel without the use of nukes will not have the air power to do what it wants, without getting hit back hard by Iran. Meaning without the US getting involved Israel will be hit back, and Iran's nuclear program (be it civilian or military) will not be set back for long.

Overall Israel will not attack (assuming no use of nukes) without assurances the US will get involved as well.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The nothern route is closed pretty much, Turkey as I understand things have moved some air defenses towards its south east boarder, so while Syria might not detect Israeli war planes Turkey certainly could, and while its planes are not up to the level of Israeli ones they are not that far behind, they do have some of the most up to date F 16 export models, and could scramble them to intercept returning Israeli planes or those loitering in Syrian or Iraqi space.

Besides which most estimates I have seen state that Israel without the use of nukes will not have the air power to do what it wants, without getting hit back hard by Iran. Meaning without the US getting involved Israel will be hit back, and Iran's nuclear program (be it civilian or military) will not be set back for long.

Overall Israel will not attack (assuming no use of nukes) without assurances the US will get involved as well.
Click to expand...

The only scenario that I could see Turkey taking action is if Israel breached their airspace. They could go over Iraq however instead, and Turkey might be willing to more or less look the other way (and publicly claim they couldn't respond quickly enough or something like that) because Turkey is certainly no fan of an Iranian nuclear program.

I am also of the mindset that Israel will not attack, but it is interesting to speculate how it would be done if that is the option that they pursue.
 
Now this is what I call bi-partisanship!

"Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites"

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites - Times Online

It's about time someone does something more than try to kiss butt. (like obama, I might add) It's really something that we should have been doing but we have turned into whimps.

If we are going to have a conflagration in the middle east, better now than after Iran aquires the power to inflict heavy damage.

Now let the whining begin!
 
Last edited:
Re: Now this is what I call bi-partisanship!

Besides which most estimates I have seen state that Israel without the use of nukes will not have the air power to do what it wants, without getting hit back hard by Iran. Meaning without the US getting involved Israel will be hit back, and Iran's nuclear program (be it civilian or military) will not be set back for long.
Click to expand...

Iran is quite limited in their ability to retaliate. Other than using proxies, ballistic missiles are their sole means of attacking Israel. Given the inaccuracy of such missiles, limited stockpiles and Israeli anti-missiles damage would be very light.
 
Re: Now this is what I call bi-partisanship!

rathi said:
Iran is quite limited in their ability to retaliate. Other than using proxies, ballistic missiles are their sole means of attacking Israel. Given the inaccuracy of such missiles, limited stockpiles and Israeli anti-missiles damage would be very light.
Click to expand...

Hasn't Iran stated that any attack on their sovereignty will see them manuevering in the Persian Gulf to close the Strait of Hormuz?
 
Re: Now this is what I call bi-partisanship!

Hasn't Iran stated that any attack on their sovereignty will see them manuevering in the Persian Gulf to close the Strait of Hormuz?
Click to expand...

That is intended to hurt the U.S., not Israel.
 
Re: Now this is what I call bi-partisanship!

rathi said:
That is intended to hurt the U.S., not Israel.
Click to expand...

I think it will hurt any country that relies on importing oil, not just the United States.
 
Re: Now this is what I call bi-partisanship!

Degreez said:
Hasn't Iran stated that any attack on their sovereignty will see them manuevering in the Persian Gulf to close the Strait of Hormuz?
Click to expand...

Iran attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz basically ensures conflict with the United States. If push came to shove, unless we (and not Israel) basically started a war with them, I do not see Iran making such a move.
 
Re: Now this is what I call bi-partisanship!

NolaMan said:
Iran attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz basically ensures conflict with the United States. If push came to shove, unless we (and not Israel) basically started a war with them, I do not see Iran making such a move.
Click to expand...
If Israel attacked Iran with a low-yield nuclear warhead, you can be sure they will be blaming America along with Israel. What we do know is that Iran has already threatened to militarily close the Strait if there is any preemptive attack. What we do know is that Iran has HY-2 Haiying and C-801 anti-ship missiles already in place on Abu Musa, as well as the MIM-23 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles. In the long run, any attempt by Iran to close the Strait will be very damaging to Iran's infrastructure. In the short run, Iran can cause the entire world a lot of problems simply by harrassing tankers in the Strait.
 
Re: Now this is what I call bi-partisanship!

There is no chance Israel would use a nuke, we might have a government full of Bush clones. However, some logic is maintanted in there, and in that logic there is a huge sign saying " DO NOT USE NUKES"

Anyone that maintains a government job and actually wants to fire a nukes...I just got no words to describe the..I cant even describe my fail to describe..

People need to get it out of their heads about nukes.

and one thing is 4sure using nukes is not even thought of.

Its stupid to think that israel would use nukes.
 
Last edited:
Re: Now this is what I call bi-partisanship!

Degreez said:
If Israel attacked Iran with a low-yield nuclear warhead, you can be sure they will be blaming America along with Israel. What we do know is that Iran has already threatened to militarily close the Strait if there is any preemptive attack. What we do know is that Iran has HY-2 Haiying and C-801 anti-ship missiles already in place on Abu Musa, as well as the MIM-23 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles. In the long run, any attempt by Iran to close the Strait will be very damaging to Iran's infrastructure. In the short run, Iran can cause the entire world a lot of problems simply by harrassing tankers in the Strait.
Click to expand...

Cept for the fact that not only Israel and the USA would prob bomb the heck out of the AA and AB missles, also other nations would jump on ( i can see the UK getting involved) It would end up like the war when Eygpt blockaded the siuz canal and france britian and israel attacked it. ( spell phail deal with it ^^ )
 
Re: Now this is what I call bi-partisanship!

CrazyMcCool said:
Cept for the fact that not only Israel and the USA would prob bomb the heck out of the AA and AB missles, also other nations would jump on ( i can see the UK getting involved) It would end up like the war when Eygpt blockaded the siuz canal and france britian and israel attacked it. ( spell phail deal with it ^^ )
Click to expand...

I seem to recall that didn't work out too well for Britain, France or Israel.
 
Re: Now this is what I call bi-partisanship!

CrazyMcCool said:
There is no chance Israel would use a nuke, we might have a government full of Bush clones. However, some logic is maintanted in there, and in that logic there is a huge sign saying " DO NOT USE NUKES"

Anyone that maintains a government job and actually wants to fire a nukes...I just got no words to describe the..I cant even describe my fail to describe..
Click to expand...

I 100% would argue that there are people in the government examing that possibility. If there is not, then your government is doing you a grave injustice by not examing all options. Perhaps it is not a viable option, but I guarantee someone is examining that option.

People need to get it out of their heads about nukes.

and one thing is 4sure using nukes is not even thought of.
Click to expand...

Let's be real, if a few low-yield tactical nukes were in fact used, would it be the end of the world? No.

Its stupid to think that israel would use nukes.
Click to expand...

No its not, it is considering all options....something every government would do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom